Analysis of Syllogism Based on Life Goal

I have always dreaded the idea of being jailed or imprisoned. This prompted me to be cautious with factors or issues in my livelihood that could have landed me in prison. Apparently, following the rules and policies of my country, will be essential, when it comes to avoiding being jailed. I was compelled to come up with the following hypothetical syllogism: If you follow the set laws of the country, then you will not be jailed. I will abide by the laws of the country. I will, therefore, be not jailed.

If this sample essay on"Analysis of Syllogism Based on Life Goal" doesn’t help,
our writers will!

Trust an expert

In any given society, there can only be order, peace and unity if the members of that particular society adhere to the set rules. Well documented and acceptable laws are integral as far as governing and guiding people is concerned. For there to be sustained peace, order, and unity, each and every member should abide and respect the law. In the society, there are also some individuals who are prone to breaking the set laws meant to govern the community at large. In order to avoid such instance, the lawmakers came up with solutions, which can perceive to be penalties for the law offenders. Once a person breaks the law, he/she is given a punishment, matching the offense he committed, in respect to the broken law.

In most cases, the punishment given to the law offenders is to serve a jail term or be fined. For instance, vices such as stealing, raping, fighting and other felonies are punishable by the law. There is also a set of offenses called capital offenses which are punishable by death, such as treason, espionage or commit of murder. All instances involving punishment are prompted by individuals who opt against following the law. Even in Holy books, like a bible or Quran, it is pointed out how judgment is passed against those who break the law of the Lord. It, therefore, follows that, if you break the law, you will be punished: most lawbreakers are punished by serving jail terms. This implies that those who break the law will be imprisoned.

Apart from the law offenders, there is also another set of people in the society, who adore abiding by the given laws as well respecting them. These people are considered to be orderly and peace-loving people. They rarely commit offenses in the society due to their diligence when it comes to following the set laws, meant to govern and guide the society. Such people cannot face any judgment r punishment since they have not broken any law. Due to the absence of the punishment, it implies that they will also be not imprisoned. This intimates that, if I follow the law, I will not be imprisoned: so far, I have always abide by the laws, consequently, I have not been imprisoned because I followed the law.

The validity of this hypothetical syllogism: Strengths/weakness.

Apparently, this hypothetical syllogism observed the laws of the syllogism which state that: if p implies q and q imply r; then p implies r. In this instance:

p= If you follow the set laws of the country

q= I will abide by the laws of the country.

r= I will, therefore, be not jailed.

It follows that the conclusion r has been implicitly drawn from p via q. However, this hypothetical syllogism also has some weakness. There are some of the assumptions that have been left out. For instance, suppose somebody breaks the law but he is not found or given punishment? Sometimes, the law offenders can be favored by those in powers to execute punishment. It follows that not all law-breakers can be imprisoned. Again, not all punishable offenses can lead to imprisonment. Despite these few weakness, this hypothetical syllogism has been a success.